Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by bbjeg, Apr 6, 2014.
His strength and the role he played in setting up the plot were enough.
She's still there.
Not for me. Of all the MCU movie villains, he's the one who left the least of an impression, other than maybe Malekith. And that's sad both because the comics character is more interesting and because Lee Pace deserved a better part to apply his talents to.
It's hard to leave less of an impression than Malekith. He was plot wallpaper.
I have to wonder how much of that was due to Loki's screentime being increased and how much was due to Eccleston phoning it in.
I think the fact that he spoke entirely in a madeup language didn't help his performance.
That depends -- does he have Shakespearean training? That's great for figuring out how to convey ideas and emotions even when your audience doesn't necessarily understand the words you're using. That's why Star Trek used so many Shakespearean actors -- it's great training for SF or fantasy.
There was a lot of cut material for Maleketh that would have given him more depth. I guess that was cut out when they saw how insanely popular Loki/Hiddelston was and they decided to add more scenes with him.
Sure, but it's still easier for an actor to emote in their own language.
Regardless, the answer to your question appears to be yes.
Being good is not about getting to do easy things.
Not worthy of creating it's own thread since so little has been revealed but worthy talking about.
The Inhumans are coming to TV on ABC.
This makes a lot of sense. I don't know much about the Inhumans, but what little of their background I've read beyond the material used in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. sounds pretty complex and would probably work better on television. Besides, the idea of Inhumans is well established there anyways.
I really gotta wonder they could do the Royal Family on a tv budget. Obviously Medusa's chair isn't going to be constant CGI movement. What about um the big guy with backwards goat's legs? What about Lockjaw? What about Triton?
Lockjaw would be CGI. Gorgon, CGI when we see his legs. Triton, costume and appliances.
I think there's an extra cconsonant there...
Anyway, TV shows are doing impressive stuff with digital characters these days. Look at Hive in Agents of SHIELD last season, or Ghost Rider this season, or J'onn on Supergirl.
Do we know that Medusa's hair is in constant motion? I mean, by the nature of comic-book art, it's hard to tell. In her animated appearances, it's generally only moved when it needed to; I assume much the same could be the case in a live-action/CGI treatment. But having it be fairly mobile seems well within the capacity of modern CGI. I'm thinking of the pilot episode of The Expanse, where Julie Mao's hair was digitally animated to wave around as if in microgravity. It was obviously digital, but not badly done, and there was a fair amount of animation there. It was only for a few scenes in one episode, but that was on a Syfy budget. And the tech keeps advancing from year to year. So I'm sure Medusa would be within their capabilities.
Easy to do in the occasional long shot, and to avoid in close-ups.
I gather The Walking Dead just did an episode with a fully digital tiger. The Flash has done Grodd and King Shark.
But if they have Lockjaw, I really hope they include Ms. Marvel as well, so that he can be a good bizarro doggie.
I've seen enough CGI heavy shows these days that I don't doubt they'll be able to pull it off. If worse comes to worse, they could just have Medusa's hair be regular most of the time and then when she needs it to it can grow and become active, kind of like how Ounce Upon a Time handled Ursula's tentacles.
I wonder if we'll get any kind of set up or crossovers with AOS? With Inhumans being such being such a big part of the show, I'd assume we will.
As for the debate about the villains in the movies, it is disappointing that they're wasting great actors, but I'm not that bothered by the characters themselves. They're just there to give the heroes a conflict and something to punch, and since the movies are about the heroes and not them, I'm fine with that. I can see where it would be annoying if you are looking forward to a character appearing onscreen and ended up being disappointing, but I think there are more than enough good points to make up for that.
The piece on io9 suggests that it's "not considered a direct spinoff of the events of Agents of SHIELD." So any links may be peripheral.
It's just that well-drawn and complex villains are such a major part of what Marvel is known for in the comics, so it's surprising that they can't bring that to their movies as well, except in occasional cases like Loki.
Frankly, it's not the TV show aspect that concerns me, it's that it's ABC. The IMAX part makes me actually think the CG will be pretty good.
Most of their best villains got sold to Fox, like Magneto and Dr Doom.
And Fox has done a far worse job with Dr. Doom than Marvel has done with its own villains, which is just sad.
Boy howdy, yes.
Honestly, what was stopping FOX from having the FF's first enemy be Namor or an invasion from Annihilus or the Kree or Skrulls or whatever? One thing I do appreciate from MCU is that they don't always use the arch-enemy in the first film anymore.
Yes, the X-Men movies always end up falling back to Magneto and it's annoying...but that's mainly because the X-Men don't really have any other notable villains than him.
So Inhumans has been retooled to be a TV show instead of a movie series. Should be interesting.
Separate names with a comma.